HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Who gets free speech? » Reply #6
In the discussion thread: Who gets free speech? [View all]

Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 10:16 AM

6. And yet that has never been the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted (by the Supreme Court)

 

Last edited Tue Oct 2, 2012, 11:01 AM - Edit history (1)

The Supreme Court, the very first time it mentioned the Second Amendment, called it a right "of person" and said that individual, private citizens could travel freely in every state and carry guns wherever they went.

Your interpretation makes an unwarranted leap. Even taken at face value, excluding all other reasons does not mean what you are applying it to mean. Accepting, for the sake of discussion, that the need for a militia is the only reason the right to arms is explicitly protected, it does not follow that the right only exists for militia service.

Let's look at a similar construction:

"The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth." Mass. Const. pt. I, art. XVI (1780)


Applying the rule--"the express mention of one thing excludes all others"--as you did above, we would conclude that liberty of the press only existed for "the security of freedom in a state" and that any publication that did not serve that purpose was unprotected.

Another serious issue is ignoring the meaning of the word "right." As the Court has said multiple times, the RKBA existed before the Constitution and is not dependent on the Constitution for its existence. The American legal philosophy is that people with rights exist, then governments are instituted for the purpose of securing those rights.

By calling the "right to keep and bear arms" a right, the founders said, quite clearly, that the people's right to keep and bear arms is one of those things that government exists to secure. The popular argument that the right only exists so that citizens may secure the state is turning the entire system on its head.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 38 replies Author Time Post
needledriver Sep 2012 OP
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #1
COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #2
petronius Oct 2012 #3
COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #4
needledriver Oct 2012 #5
AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #26
LineLineLineLineReply And yet that has never been the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted (by the Supreme Court)
TPaine7 Oct 2012 #6
petronius Oct 2012 #8
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #10
COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #18
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #19
COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #23
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #27
COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #30
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #31
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #37
COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #38
TPaine7 Oct 2012 #21
COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #24
TPaine7 Oct 2012 #32
AtheistCrusader Oct 2012 #11
COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #12
AtheistCrusader Oct 2012 #14
COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #16
AtheistCrusader Oct 2012 #34
TPaine7 Oct 2012 #33
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #9
COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #13
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #15
COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #17
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #20
COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #25
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #28
hack89 Oct 2012 #29
TPaine7 Oct 2012 #22
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #7
TPaine7 Oct 2012 #35
Oneka Oct 2012 #36
Please login to view edit histories.